ORDER : 1. This civil writ petition has been preferred claiming the following reliefs:- “It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition in the nature of Certiorari may kindly be allowed. By an appropriate writ order or direction:- (i) The impugned order dated 23.08.2019 (Annex-1) passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur may kindly be declared illegal and the same may kindly be quashed and set aside. (ii) The original Application filed by the applicant/respondent may kindly be dismissed. (iii) Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioners, may kindly be granted. (iv) The cost of the writ petition be allowed in favour of the petitioners.” 2. The present writ petition has been filed against the order dated 23.08.2019 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench in O.A. No.290/00028/2018, whereby the petitioners have been directed to consider the case of the respondent-applicant for grant of pension by counting full service rendered in Group ‘D’ cadre. 3. Mr. Uttam Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondent-applicant was appointed as GDSBPM Kujti Post Office BO on 13.03.1976 under Lunkaransar SO and Bikaner HO. After rendering 27 years of service, the respondent-applicant was selected in Group ‘D’ and joined on 21.04.2003 at Lunkaransar Post Office vide appointment order dated 03.04.2003. 3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the respondent-applicant remained absent from the duty during the years 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 & 2013 and lastly submitted a few medical certificates, and claimed sanction of medical leave on the basis of those certificate, However, the certificates did not contain the proper information required about the medical condition of the respondent-applicant. Thus, the said medical certificates were refused to be accepted and consequently, period of 554 days was ordered to be treated as dies-non by the competent authority. The respondent-applicant superannuated on31.07.2013 on attaining the age of 60 years. 3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that after deducting the period of dies non, the respondent-applicant rendered 8 years, 9 months & 2 days of service, thus rendering him ineligible for pensionary benefits under pension rules. However, on retirement, the service and retirement gratuities were paid to the respondent-applicant. 3.3. 3.2. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that after deducting the period of dies non, the respondent-applicant rendered 8 years, 9 months & 2 days of service, thus rendering him ineligible for pensionary benefits under pension rules. However, on retirement, the service and retirement gratuities were paid to the respondent-applicant. 3.3. Learned counsel also submitted that repeated representations were filed by the respondent-applicant to get the leave sanctioned on one or the other head. The infirmity in the medical certificates for the prolonged absence however, could not be condoned, but taking a lenient view, the absence period was ordered to be dies-non. Learned counsel submitted that no appeal/representation against the order of dies-non, passed in the year 2011, was preferred before the competent authority in time despite having multiple opportunity to do so, thus the same cannot be challenged at this belated stage. Learned counsel further submitted that the leave sanctioning authority is empowered under Rule 62 of the Postal Manual III to pass such orders. The Rule 62 of the Postal Manual III reads as under:- “62. Absence of officials from duty without proper permission or when on duty in office, they have left the office without proper permission or while in the office, they refused to perform the duties assigned to them is subversive of discipline. In cases of such absence from work, the leave sanctioning authority may order that the days on which work is not performed be treated as dies non i.e. they will neither count as service nor be construed as break in service. This will be without prejudice to any other action that the competent authorities might take against the persons resorting to such practices.” 3.4. Learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the department may have the sympathy towards the person, but the same cannot result into statutory right of benefits of pension. He further submitted that as per Rule 23 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Rule 122 of P&T Manual Volume-III, the time limit for appeal is 45 days but the respondent-applicant submitted his representation in the year 2017, i.e. after four years of the order of dies non having been passed. 4. Per Contra, Mr. He further submitted that as per Rule 23 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and Rule 122 of P&T Manual Volume-III, the time limit for appeal is 45 days but the respondent-applicant submitted his representation in the year 2017, i.e. after four years of the order of dies non having been passed. 4. Per Contra, Mr. S.P. Singh, Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-applicant while disagreeing with the submissions made by the petitioners submitted that, the respondent-applicant had completed more than 10 years of service in Group ‘D’ cadre and had attained superannuation on completion of 60 years of age on 31.07.2013 and thus, the respondent-applicant rendered 27 years of service as GDSBPM and thereafter 10 years, 3 months & 10 days service in Group ‘D’ cadre, therefore, he is entitled to be granted of pension. He further submitted that non grant of pension is an independent cause of action.He also submitted that dies-non was a major penalty and could not have been granted without holding a departmental enquiry. 4.1. Learned counsel for the respondent-applicant further submitted that there is no delay on his part to a remedy because the present cause of grievance is not the order of dies-non, but rather the pension having not been granted. Moreover, learned counsel submitted that the original document of the Respondent- applicant have been weeded out and therefore, any further examination was not possible by the CAT, and thus the benefit was rightly passed to the employee. 4.2. Learned counsel for the respondent-applicant also submitted that forfeiting of past service without giving an opportunity to be heard is in violation of Government of India Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 28 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972. Learned counsel submitted that the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed in the case of Gulab Singh Solanki Vs. State of M.P. & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 4986/2011) decided on 06.07.2017 and the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in the case of Vinod Kumar Saxena Vs. Union of India & Ors. in OA No. 749/2015 passed on 17.11.2016, support the case of the present respondent-applicant. 5. Heard counsel for both the parties as well as perused the judgments cited by the Bar. 6. Union of India & Ors. in OA No. 749/2015 passed on 17.11.2016, support the case of the present respondent-applicant. 5. Heard counsel for both the parties as well as perused the judgments cited by the Bar. 6. This Court after considering the facts of the case, particularly that the respondent is an employee, who was appointed on 13.03.1976 as GDSBPM, and has rendered 27 years of service before being selected in Group ‘D’ on 21.04.2003 and further rendered service for 10 years till his superannuation, finds that examination of dies-non on merits was not possible because the record of the respondent-applicant has been weeded out. This Court also finds that in all respondent-applicant rendered about 37 years of service, though his absence is glaring, but once the petitioners themselves have chosen to ignore the same by declaring the same as dies-non, they virtually have condoned the prolonged absence to the extent of having no adverse impact. 7. At this juncture, this court observes that under the present factual matrix, it is pertinent to determine the nature of dies non, as the same is the bone of contention between both the parties. It refers to a period of time that is not counted towards an employee’s length of service, benefits and other entitlements, but at the same time it preserves continuity of service. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sukhdarshan Singh vs. The State of Punjab (Civil Appeal Nos. 811-812 of 2012) clarified that dies non is not a penalty in law. 8. This court in light of the factual matrix of the present case, the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 applicable upon the respondent-applicant and judicial precedent cited above, observes that in the present case, dies non has been used only as a mode to regularize the services of the respondent-applicant and to ensure a continuity in the same for his own benefit and not to cause any adverse impact to him and therefore can not be considered as a form of penalty. 9. This Court is, however, of the view that once weeding out of the documents has happened, no fresh examination is possible regarding applicability of the dies-non and its subsequent impact on the pension of a person who has served the petitioners for about 37 years. 9. This Court is, however, of the view that once weeding out of the documents has happened, no fresh examination is possible regarding applicability of the dies-non and its subsequent impact on the pension of a person who has served the petitioners for about 37 years. In case the record was available with the Court, the issue of particulars and medical leaves which were being sought along with other possible legal sanctioning of leaves could have been considered. 10. In light of the aforesaid observation, this Court is of the opinion that the Learned CAT had rightly arrived at a considered conclusion. Thus, no cause of interference is made out in the impugned order dated 23.08.2019 (Annex-1) passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench. 11. Consequently, the instant writ petition is dismissed.